Archive through December 08, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Player Campaigns:
Admiral's Game: Federation vs. Hydran:
Archive through December 08, 2022
Turn 2 assignments are up.
I spread my ships out fairly evenly. He focused on defending 4 locations. That's smart since I have to win 5 to progress. It helps him that my one weak front is an even battle so he has a chance to win one he'd planned on losing. It could also backfire since it gave me three free wins.
I disengaged immediately in zone 2. He disengaged immediately in zones 3, 6, and 7. I have to win two of the remaining four zones to advance.
| Zone | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Terrain | Minefield | n/a | n/a | Pirate | None | n/a | n/a | Gas Giant |
| Federation | fight | loss | win | fight | fight | win | win | fight |
| | 2x DD | CVA | CC | BCG | DNG | 6x NCL | 5x NCL | CVA |
| | | NAC | 2x CM | 2x CC | CM | | | NAC |
| | | 2x DEA | CVH | 3x CM | 2x NCL | | | 2x DEA |
| | | CM | NAC | | CC | | | CM |
| | | | FBE | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Hydran | fight | win | loss | fight | fight | loss | loss | fight |
| | LN | PAL | LN | PAL | PAL | LN | LN | LC |
| | CU | LC | CU | LC | LC | CU | CU | CHC |
| | | CHC | | CHC | CHC | | | TAR |
| | | RN | | RN | RN | | | KN |
| | | MNG | | MNG | MNG | | | |
| | | 2x TAR | | TAR | TAR | | | |
| | | KN | | DG | DG | | | |
| | | HN | | KN | KN | | | |
| | | | | HN | HN | | | |
Zone 1
This is a pretty even battle. There are a few factors in my favor. First, he has to get close to really use the Lancer. Second, its fighters are only speed 15 so I can run away from them forever (or until I start losing power). Third, he has a mixed force. Fourth, the CU is small and fragile so I should be able to chase it away ith two proxy volleys.
I plan to dance with proxies for as long as possible. His ships can go speed 30 and arm everything but the minefield will mess with maneuvers. That will hopefully give me an extra volley or two to whittle away shields. Once he starts to get close I'll move out of the field so I can keep the range open. The goal is to force the CU out of the battlefield before it gets to do much. Then keep away from the LN and whittle away its shields at around 16 boxes every other turn. Or every third turn if there are times when I have to forego arming altogether and just run. Eventually it'll get close and I'll need to arrange to be within overload range over a turn break. Even range 8 will do major damage with 4 expected hits.
Zone 4
The pirate is definitely a wildcard. If it comes to my side it'll be a big help since I'm already outnumbered. I have more photons than he has hellbores and enough average damage (48) to drop a shield every time I shoot. I'm definitely outgunned here and if I can't keep the range open I'll be forced to disengage. I may also be forced to disengage if he decides to start taking range 23+ shots and gets a few lucky rolls. He can expect one out of 4 to hit for 4 damage each but it'll be spread across shields and he'll probably need to use phasers to soften a ship up unless he's fine with splashing my rear shields.
Zone 5
This is very similar to Zone 4 except there's no possibility of a pirate showing up for either side.
zone 8
This, along with zone 1, seems to be my best hope of scoring a much-needed victory. As with the other disputed zones I'll be focused on long range sniping. I have fewer photons but can leave behind a screening force of 18 fighters to keep him occupied and fill the sky with drones. The fighters are expensive and need to be upgraded to megafighters next round so I doubt I'll charge them in unless he gives me a very good reason to do so. More likely is that they launch their drones, maybe take some range 15 gatling and P2 shots, then disengage before he starts shooting them down. A lack of EW means no erratics or pods so they're pretty fragile but they can disengage via acceleration at pretty much any time.
Bad news for interested readers but good news for our future fun levels: we're dropping The Admiral's Game. The system is just too flawed. It basically boils down to me winning if I can push past layer 3 while he has to stack up all of his ships in tight defenses to hold me back. With no real penalty for the defender losing there's no point in trying to be very strategic beyond that.
We're talking to someone who could referee a more full campaign with exploration, fog of war, economic production based on sectors controlled, etc.
How would you fix The Admiral's Game?
Sorry for such a long post but I'm very annoyed that what started as a fun campaign is quickly going to grind to an unwinnable halt. Then again, maybe Bob Thompson and I are missing something. If so, please point it out.
Here are the main problems as I see it:
1. There are no penalties for the defender losing territory. This means that they can totally ignore some regions and stack defenses in others. In effect the attacker has to use 6-8 small fleets to try and push past 3-4 larger ones. Since all empty spaces are equally (un)important it's a guessing game as to where those large fleets will be. If you try to have large fleets of your own and get unlucky then you lose a lot of ships next round (see #2). As an example: the defender is best served by stacking their larger ships together in 4 sectors on the first line of defense. The rest can be manned with frigates that disengage as soon as the fight starts. The attacker, unable to know which sectors will have giant fleets, must either divide their forces and be severely outgunned or stack their forces and hope to guess correctly.
2. There is a massive penalty for the attacker losing a battle. Every ship which disengages is unusable on the next turn. Every loss makes it more likely that you will lose future battles. This would be fine if the same rules applied to the defender.
3. Layer 2 involves starbases. That's not a problem on its own but because of #1 it is very easy for the defender to place large fleets there with little concern about other sectors. No attacking fleet is going to be able to overcome a starbase and an equally-sized fleet of defenders. To continue the example from #1: the defender still has 4 large fleets to divvy up but two of those are defended by starbases. They only need to win one of the other battles to hold the line. If they happen to fail, see #4.
4. When a base is not defeated but the layer is then the attacker has to leave ships behind. The defender can choose to leave ships and keep even more attacking ships out of future battles. Because of command limits the defender may leave smaller ships and force the attacker to leave large ones. Those starbases also get minefields to make it even less likely they'll ever be taken.
5. The attacker, if they make it to the third line, should fight for a stalemate. Pressing forward could cause lost ships which in turn would cause you to be pushed back because of #1. A stalemate at this line is a victory even if the starbases weren't defeated (which they weren't).
My thinking for possible changes. Note that not all of them should be applied.
1. Base annual production on the number of sectors controlled. There is now a much larger incentive for the defender to protect everything they can.
2. Move half of the defending ships which disengage to the reserves as attackers must do. Again, they now have an incentive to not simply throw fights.
3. Remove or lower the number of ships which the attacker must leave behind when they disengage. An unlucky guess in the crapshoot of "where did he stack his defenders" is no longer devestating.
4. Apply a large limit to the number of ships which can defend a starbase. This would make those battles winnable.
5. Remove starbases altogether and replace ith with BATS. They are still strong when defended by a fleet, are free, and will get minefields when they drive attackers away.
6. Remove the baseline number of ships a base which was left behind can keep busy. After all, a SB all alone with no ships to support it shouldn't be able to disrupt supply lines so much that the attacker has to leave 6 ships behind.
7. Change the victory conditions so that a stalemate isn't as advantageous to the attacker. I have no idea how to do this.
I’m intrigued by your post and recent experiences with the Admiral’s Game. I’ve been planning a an Admiral’s Game for this very Christmas, as I have some time off and want to give it a go.
Obviously I have not played it yet. I have been thinking about it a lot, however. So I offer two paths of insight for consideration. First, my thoughts as they are now; second, I’ll lay out my game and play results (As you have. And it’s been terribly fun and interesting to read, I might add.) and see if I come to similar conclusions.
Paraphrasing again, but was something said in the Tactics guide along the lines of:
The only valid test is combat. The only valid result is victory.
(As a side note, try that one on your boss at work and see how fast you end up in HR. Some people have no sense of humor.)
I hope I’m not being obnoxious with this approach, but I do want to play the A-Game and I’m a firm believer in challenging the system. Kick the tires, rev the motor, and make sure it’s not a lemon.
So here goes part #1: Thoughts Before Play. (Or what I call: unqualified babble on my part)
1. it’s supposed to be hard, maybe nigh on impossible to conquer thine neighbor in space. Were it easy, everybody would do it all the time. Look and Russia trying to take Ukraine. (Too soon?) Much of what you mention is wonderful Fog of War stuff-I love it. Just a thought: ship picks, fleet organization, and placement on the map are the strategy of those who didn’t lose vs those who didn’t win. (I know, talk is cheap. I beg your indulgence.)
2. There is a penalty for the attacker losing. The aggressor is a long way from home, with a questionable, limited supply line. If I got my hat handed to me in deep space, I’d run home to mommy too. The defender need not run anywhere, he’s already home, defending it.
3. Consider S8.24 Command Points (in Advanced Missions). This rule can increase an attack forces command limits for attacking Starbases, capitals, etc. (paraphrasing, of course).
I plan to skip any major assault on Starbases early on. The A-Game is one of attrition. Kill more ship than the enemy kills of yours and kill more ships than his rate of new construction. Over time, if you are successful, the enemy will start to run out of ships. “Then hit the Starbase with the rock!” (5 points if you can name that quote.
Yes, I can see where the defender seems to have a big advantage here, but not on round one, half his fleet is in reserve. Best time to Kill ships=round one. Put a dent in his advantage.
These ideas are variable because if the starting fleets are massive enough, it’s going to be a 10 on 10 slaughter fest for some time anyway.
You can always fall back on purpose to get those ships out of reserve and bolster your front line. The A-game is one of strategy not tactics.
OK I have babbled on far too long and probably stuck my foot in my mouth more than once.
Many of your suggestion look very interesting. I’ve always considered the A-Game to be a base line ready for house rules and mods. There are many good suggestions published in CL’s for adding to or modifying the A-Game.
I’ll throw in some of my own when I post my game details.
I’m glad you posted Ginger. I think this could be a very lively discussion and SFB adventure.
Some people say I don’t need an excuse to play. But it’s nice to claim I have one.
Never start a space-war in the Federation...
Quote:1. it’s supposed to be hard, maybe nigh on impossible to conquer thine neighbor in space. Were it easy, everybody would do it all the time. Look and Russia trying to take Ukraine. (Too soon?) Much of what you mention is wonderful Fog of War stuff-I love it. Just a thought: ship picks, fleet organization, and placement on the map are the strategy of those who didn’t lose vs those who didn’t win. (I know, talk is cheap. I beg your indulgence.)
I agree that it's hard in "real life" to take a capital in space. I don't think it should be impossible in a game.
Quote:2. There is a penalty for the attacker losing. The aggressor is a long way from home, with a questionable, limited supply line. If I got my hat handed to me in deep space, I’d run home to mommy too. The defender need not run anywhere, he’s already home, defending it.
Again, it makes sense from a rational standpoint but makes for an unfun game. At least IMO.
Quote:3. Consider S8.24 Command Points (in Advanced Missions). This rule can increase an attack forces command limits for attacking Starbases, capitals, etc. (paraphrasing, of course).
Thanks! That rule starts with "F&E" so I never really read it.
Quote:I plan to skip any major assault on Starbases early on. The A-Game is one of attrition. Kill more ship than the enemy kills of yours and kill more ships than his rate of new construction. Over time, if you are successful, the enemy will start to run out of ships. “Then hit the Starbase with the rock!” (5 points if you can name that quote.
I'd love to hear an example of how you see this proceeding. You can't force losses because there's no penalty for retreat. If the defender's fleet isn't large enough to also force losses then they simply stroll away. It's impossible to stop them from retreating on turn 1.
Quote:Yes, I can see where the defender seems to have a big advantage here, but not on round one, half his fleet is in reserve. Best time to Kill ships=round one. Put a dent in his advantage.
Again, how do you kill ships when there's no penalty for retreat? The defender needs to stack ships at bases so they don't lose the line. Once they've done that you have future fleets out of action and minefields to contend with if you do backtrack.
Quote:You can always fall back on purpose to get those ships out of reserve and bolster your front line. The A-game is one of strategy not tactics.
You can only send a limited number of ships back to the reserve for overhauls. Some have to go forward. If you don't send enough forward then those are forced to retreat and will be the ones unavailable in the next round. You'll end up having to leapfrog your active ships, losing ground, and being force out of the defender's territory.
I'd love to hear how you envision it going for your game. As I said, I don't doubt that we've missed something and I'd be happy to see what that is.
When I first read about your Admiral's Game, I thought that the FED would win easily based on the Weapon Status situation. The Fed had a great numerical ship advantage going in.
The "zone" Admiral's game has 40 Fed vs 39 Hydran ships. (This does not count fighters and Hydran bases). Advantage Hydran. (I am unsure if Weapon Status still applies with the "zone" game.)
One item, changing the rules once the game started bugs me. I asked about EW out of curiosity. It is a totally different battle when EW is used. I think I was successful in pointing that out. It is best to decide on the rules to use before the game starts and not change them.
Definitely no EW. Perhaps only natural ECM would be allowed. For me natural ECM is fun.
I think the Hyrans win zone 4 and 5 (based on numbers of ships). That leaves zone 1 and 8. The Fed has the advantage in ships and needs to win both to declare victory. They look like fun to play out.
Zone 1 - Advantage Fed, but not necessarily a guaranteed victory. Let me ask, is there a third neutral player* available to run the Mine Field? Or am I assuming too much? Is the Mine Field visible to all or *hidden. As the Mine Field is likely an obstacle for both the players to overcome, I presume that the minefield is visible, uses automatic rules and are all small explosive mines.
Zone 8 - This is advantage Hydran. It is a Fed Carrier Group vs a Hydran Regular Group (with standard Hydran fighters). The Gas Giant provides an obstacle. If natural ECM is used, it gets more complicated. What is the Photon and Hellbore count? Range 22 could get interesting!
I think the Hydran might concede 1 and play out 8.
At the moment we're looking at stopping this campaign (see my follow-up post for reasons why). I agree that the fights would be fun to play out. It's the overall campaign structure which has issues and will eventually become unfun because of them. To your points and questions:
We would be using natural ECM.
I agree on zones 4 and 5. My goal there would be to inflict more losses than I take, not actually win the battles.
Zone 1: Per The Admiral's Game rules the minefield is known to all. It uses a modified asteroid field. Each mine hex has a small mine set to size class 5 and lower units and a large one set to size class 4 and up.
Zone 8: I don't know the hellbore count offhand (14?). There are 24 photons but 12 of those are on fighters so both limited in range and in how many shots they can get. The gas giant is a major factor as it can break lock on for my drones plus gives something to hide behind so I can't get in a lot of proxy barrages.
The Hydran didn't concede zone 1. I don't expect it would have been a very difficult fight. The only hellbore there is on a frigate. Once it is forced to turn away by my proxied photons it's proxies vs. fusions. I should win that in the long run by scraping away shields while the Hydran rushes at me. The DDs aren't great ships but they can move speed 25 as long as they're not trying to use overloads. I should be able to play keep for quite a while.
We hadn't rolled for weapon status yet so things could have changed drastically. Especially if the Feds roll low on the carrier fight and the Hydrans do not.
You ask some very good questions, Ginger. They kind of make my head hurt thinking about them. I suspect there's more than one way to skin a--sorry Garth, if you're listening, I retract that! There's probably more than one way to filet a rabid penguin. (My apologies to the penguin lovers out there.) I'm currently, shall we say, in negotiations with a prospective opponent, and trying to form a cohesive game plan.
It's really your fault. You've inspired me to give it a go.
I've played thru the Captain's game more times than I can remember. Done a fair share of Fleet action patrol games. But never assaulted a Starbase or played any of the published campaigns.
No doubt, I have a lot to learn about.
Also, I can rhyme.
I believe we've chosen Kzinti vs Federation. My opponent wishes to be Federation, and to be the attacker. Also, CL #31 has some fun variations with convoy raiding. We're working on how we want to implement that. That's all we got so far.
Oh, and we want to have some random planets and such . . .stealing the idea from your campaign.
I don't think I'll be as detailed and as thorough in the planning and execution as you all are used to. And my game style might be a bit haphazard compared to most. But I'll try to give a good accounting of the set up, outcome, issues, and thoughts, for what they're worth.
Something that occurs to me:
Who's played the Admiral's Game? Any comments, questions, concerns, complaints, quips, or other insights? Any admonishments, premonitions, interpretations, suggestions, or advice?
Do I talk too much?
Don't answer that.
Oh, by the way, I dont want to steal any bodies thunder. This is a very engaging conversation, but it's really not the place I think to be throwing out all my own ideas. So, back to Gingers points:
Quote:
"No attacking fleet is going to be able to overcome a starbase"
Is a starbase and a fleet really unstoppable? Could two equal fleets battle and one have a Starbase and still lose? Ultimately a Starbase is 12 P4's and a ton of shielding. Surely that is surmountable?
I speak from a position of ignorance, of course. But could you not siege the base and draw out it's defenses? What the defenders are are as important as how many. At range 30, the P4's are nullified but you could potentially pick away at the enemy ships or base shields. Who has the better attrition units or seeking weapons?
I guess I better crunch some numbers or go play: assault a starbase.
Just thinking out loud.
The base is also a ton of scout channels. If you're not using EW that's a whole different story, of course.
Type IV phasers still do a point each at range 30. It doesn't sound like much but it helps punch through reinforcement.
But really, it's the scout channels. If the feds try to sit at range 30 and bombard then they have to contend with the opposing fleet of disruptors at range 15 with a lot of ECM. The Fed's scout will help but the defender also has a scout for O-EW.
In general a balanced BPV battle of fleets should be a coin flip. The Starbase adds around 800 extra BPV when you factor in the free fighters and drones. Even more if you're in the PF years.
The feds do have an advantage in that they'll never have to get close so minefields aren't as big of an issue.
Absolutely please bring your game reports. I want to be proven wrong. 
Starbases are stationary. If the defending fleet is out of position, the attacking fleet might be able to close and destroy it at close range. These things sometimes happen in fleet combat.
Quote:In general a balanced BPV battle of fleets should be a coin flip.
In practice, though, that's rarely the case. This is not a criticism of the BPV system; more of an acknowledgement that in a game as complex as SFB, you will always find cases where a balanced BPV still leads to a one-sided fight.
There are RPS (Rock-Paper-Scissors) issues with some technologies. Some ships are comparatively better or worse depending on rules used (EW- yes or no?, floating map or fixed map?, critical hits?). Some ships do better or worse in certain terrain types (Web caster-equipped Tholians love fighting in asteroid fields, Jindarian asteroid ships are insanely strong in a nebula).
You could fiddle with the BPV system for 100 years and it will never be "perfect", i.e., it will never guarantee that an even BPV fight will actually be an even battle. The best you can hope for is that if the BPVs are close, the battle will usually be reasonably close - allowing for the possibility of some wild mismatches due to reason cited above. I think the current BPV system is pretty good, and possibly it might be made better in this or that way. But as long as different empires employ different technologies, and as long as different player groups choose different rules sets, it will never be- can never be - perfect.
Quote:if the BPVs are close, the battle will usually be reasonably close
This is what I meant. Not that the system is perfect. Or even close to it.
In F&E, a defended starbase usually falls after multiple rounds of combat and the makeup of the attacking force during the final round may be very different from the makeup of the force that started the fight. I think this illustrates how starbases actually fall.
The starbase, plus ships/fighter/PFs/miinefield, is simply too strong initially for any attacker to just overwhelm. CR limitations won't allow the attacker to concentrate enough force. So the first attack is repulsed with heavy losses, but attrits the defender somewhat. The attacker immediately follows up with a second wave, while the defender also brings in reinforcements to replace losses. But the attacker has more forces available in the area, in total. At some point (round 3?, round 4?, more for a really crucial location?) the defender can no longer keep a full strength fleet defending the starbase while the attacker, with larger overall forces, keeps bringing in fresh waves. Eventually the few remaining defending ships are no longer enough to prevent the starbase from going down.
The attacker has probably lost significantly more ships than the defender as a result of the multiple successive battles. (That's why you don't attack defended starbases unless they are in some strategically critical location.) I think campaign rules for SFB should have a mechanism for replicating this situation, allowing multiple successive attacks on a fixed location, during the course of a single startegic turn. The question is how to establish that mechanism in a way that won't create problems of its own.
I can see Gingers point on disengaged attackers going to the reserve. It could be a severe handicap, particularly in a wave approach to Starbase assault.
Still makes my head hurt.
I played the Admirals game many years ago. I was attacker playing Klingon vs Kzinti. Drone headaches all over the place.
We got about 12 rounds in as I remember (might be more or less but close) I killed a StarBase. I Pushed past both StarBase's. Then the next round overwhelmed the ships he left in defense. Of course, I lost that round and retreated back but one dead Starbase. It ended up with a draw in the end. Lost to much in the StarBase attack
It may be that the Admiral's Game is like the Captain's Game. We dream of getting those 65+ point to be declared a Legendary Captain, but getting 25 points is pretty good and the fun was in the playing.
The Starbase lines are insidious. If you can win the open space zones you advance without having to fight the bases.
But the defender knows this also.
Does one risk a defenseless base to stop the enemy advance? Should you attack a base and bet on luck of the draw?
It has been my experience that assaulting a SB works if it is lightly defended. Against equal numbers of ships for each side, the attacker will fail.
Of course, the SB could/should have a hidden Mine Field deployed.
Beware of command-controlled mines. A SB has the option of commanding its mines (as opposed to automatically controlled mines). One can expect an explosive mine (usually the 35 pointer) to be commanded to explode at the worst possible time for the attacker followed by a barrage of nearby captor mines commanded to fire at the same time.
Just saying...
Joseph: that's definitely a gamble. But the defender also knows this. If they're smart they'll put two large fleets at the SBs to guarantee they win two spaces. They have enough ships to put two large fleets at two other spaces and have a fair shot at holding the attacker back. the following turns will be even easier as the attacker's disengaged ships are unavailable.
If the attacker succeeds then future turns will have at least 12 attacking ships held back and minefields deployed. The attacker could decide to go after a less-defended SB at that time. At least then they'll know what the defenders look like. If they don't put a big enough force they'll be sallied against and have to leave even more people behind on the following turn.
It's a losing battle for the attacker at that point. Then again, they've also won as long as they can hold the line. In that case it may be worth it to leave the smallest force possible behind and fight hard for line 3.
But I already said all that so please forgive me for whining again. ;)
Which product is the Admiral's game in? All this talk of it makes me want to take a closer look.
--Mike
Advanced Missions
For comparison's sake, the (T12.0) Fall of Demorak mini-campaign in Module C3A looks at the historical Andromedan attack on the capital world of the Lyran Democratic Republic.
In that mini-campaign, the Andromedans have ten "battle rounds" in which to steadily wear down the LDR capital defences (plus, if they succeed in doing so, an optional eleventh round in which the invaders attempt to land troops on the planet's surface), as well as a pool of Motherships and satellite ships to draw their attacking forces from. There are rules in place to cover the limited amount of time each side has to conduct repairs and to replenish weapon stocks between battle rounds.
While the means by which the Andromedans succeeded in drawing the bulk of the LDR navy away from Demorak in order to carry out this attack is perhaps unique to them, the mechanism of playing successive "battle rounds" in order to wear down enemy defences over time - which, as noted above, is how attacks on major fixed installations are typically handled over in Federation and Empire - is something which can be implemented for other campaigns.
-----
In F&E, there is the concept of an "approach battle", in which the defenders of a base agree (if offered) to fight a battle round at a distance from the base itself. The defender does not have to agree to this; if they would rather fight a "base battle" instead, they are welcome to do so.
F&E also has the concept of the Starbase Incremental Damage Steps, or SIDS. This is the result of directed damage targeted at the base itself, rather than the ships fighting in its defence. (This might be one reason for a defender to accept an approach battle, so as to avoid the risk of having SIDS steps scored in that battle round.)
I wouldn't necessarily say that SIDS steps ought to be brought over to campaigns such as this one. On the other hand, perhaps the concept of an optional approach battle might be something to consider here.
-----
On a side note, there are a number of specific instances in which an attacker is able to concentrate more firepower against an enemy base - or, perhaps, to use unique technologies in order to disrupt a base's defence.
In the M81 galaxy, the Tholians had unrestricted access to web casters, enabling them to bracket a base or planet in open space with web - which the Tholians could fire their phasers through, while blocking the defenders' own weapons fire. A "full" Tholian fleet could thus bombard a base with near impunity, whereas a "mixed" fleet of Tholians and "pre-Revolt" Seltorians (or whichever pre-Seltorian "enforcer species" was available at that point in time) could see the former cover the latter while they closed to board and capture the base.
For their part, the Revolt-era Seltorians had fateful force multipliers of their own, in the form of the Battlewagon and Assaultwgon variants of the Hive and Nest cargo haulers respectively. With rows of side-firing web breakers installed into these hulls in place of most of their hangar bays, these siege engines could be used against Tholian starbases, Dyson spheres, and perhaps even against the ancestral home world of Tholia Prime itself.
Closer to home, the attack on Demorak was not the only case in which the Andromedans were able to use the RTN to launch a broad range of strikes in order to draw a given location's defenders away, before launching a decisive attack on the location itself: see the attack on the Romulan starbase Sanguinax [(SH165.0)] in Module X1, or the attack on the Korlivilar home world in Module X1R [(SH247.0)]. (Technically-speaking, the latter covers the second "battle round" at Korlivala; the first had been fought just prior to the beginning of this scenario.)
While the Darwin's "dark future" saw the Andromedans succeed in deploying Devastator and Devourer battleships. These monster hulls, combined with the various satellite ships they could each carry in their respective hangar bays, provided the concentration of force required for the invaders to threaten even the most heavily fortified of Alpha Octant installations. Fortunately, the Andromedans never got around to deploying either battleship variant against the Alpha empires in the "standard" timeline.
Quote:I wouldn't necessarily say that SIDS steps ought to be brought over to campaigns such as this one. On the other hand, perhaps the concept of an optional approach battle might be something to consider here.
Gary,
Note my 3:15 PM post from Wednesday. For that purpose I assumed the attacker was concentrating fire, during the initial attacks, on defending ships/fighters/PFs. But the attacker might conceivably have concentrated fire on the starbase instead. In that case, if the strategic mechanics for your campaign allow for multiple attacks against a fixed target during a single strategic turn, you effectively do have a SIDS effect in tha campaign. The attacker concentrates fire on the starbase, damaging it, but eventually withdraws when the level of damage to the attacker reaches the point where continuing would just be throwing the surviving ships away for no purpose. Then the attacker, during the same turn, brings in the "second wave" to continue the assault. Maybe the starbase has had time between the two waves to repair all shield boxes, but very few actual internal systems. The second wave continues to pound the starbase, which has less firepower of its own due to damage suffered in the first wave. Rinse and repeat with a third wave, fourth wave, etc. until the base goes down. I think strategic-level rules could be written to enable this dynamic.
Regarding "approach battles"; I think it would be easy to write strategic-level rules that allowed approach battles. But there also has to be some reason why the defender would want to fight away from the base. It's easy to see the defender doing this for something like a mobile base, which is vulnerable and valuable and contributes little (a bit of EW support) to the fight. It's harder to see why the defender, at SFB-llevel, would choose to fight away from the heavy firepower of a BATS or SB.